My research examined the practice of in-house workplace mediators in British universities. For these practitioners, mediation is an occasional activity – an adjunct to their main roles – and they typically have infrequent opportunities to practice: the most experienced participant in the study had undertaken 20 cases over a period of seven years. This is a characteristic of practice that is shared by many newly trained mediators. At the start of their practice, the mediators in the study group aim to achieve a mastery of the skills and the process of mediation introduced in in their basic training. However, more experienced mediators move beyond the formal model to develop a personal style and complex schema.

Style is not fixed and may, with experience, become increasingly flexible. Research finds that mediators operate with either a simple or a complex schema (Kressel, 2013). A simple schema is portrayed as less stressful, relying on formal models, simpler intervention strategies and ‘linear’ procedural scripts. A complex schema is less reliant on formal models and utilises a diversity of intervention strategies. The latter is accompanied by more decisional stress as mediators have a greater array of choices and possible objectives.

Mediators are generally trained not to judge the people or the problem. At the same time, a mediator must judge when and how to intervene. They may select from at least 100 identified techniques (Wall and Dunne, 2012) and their judgment is about which is most likely to move the process on in the circumstances with these people. During the mediation they may also choose to do nothing whilst remaining an engaged but observant listener. Listening is a demanding state: responding to interactions between the parties which may involve high emotion and tension, being in the moment, and holding a mental map of potential routes forward. Over time, mediators are said to simplify complex choices by developing a personal style (Wall and Kressel, 2012) – a synthesis of formal mediation model and informal personal schema – that encompasses their own approach to mediation. A personal schema operates at an implicit unconscious level drawing on personal insights acquired over time and with experience. Developing a personal style requires an opportunity to learn from experience and using a framework for managing learning which supports making the implicit explicit.

University mediators develop their personal style through post-case reflective practice. This is conducted with their co-mediator, service coordinator and periodically within their university practitioner group. Two types of questions characterise these reflections: ‘what’ and ‘how’? ‘What’ allows the less experienced mediator to ask what they should (or should not) be doing, seeking confirmation that techniques acquired in training have been effectively applied. The questions also act as a check on any carry-over of practice from a mainstream role such as coaching. ‘How’ questions address micro-practice, examining which techniques could or should be used and when they should be deployed. For instance, mediators are taught the importance of ground rules in establishing and maintaining a safe space in mediation. Reflective questions help develop effective strategies for applying ground rules. The starting point is ‘what constitutes an effective ground rule?’, and ‘how do I
apply them?’.

Used in this manner, reflective practice can be effective in identifying gaps in skills or knowledge that can then be addressed within the practice group. The practitioner can become adept at enacting what has been learned in basic training and be functional in interaction. Reflection builds a common platform for ‘the way mediation is done round here’, something of particular importance to the new mediator and the practice of co-mediation. However, to progress further as a practitioner, and develop one’s own theory of practice requires reflexive learning – a willingness to test assumptions with ‘why’ and ‘who’ questions – that makes explicit the unexamined and taken-for-granted aspects of practice. Asking a mediator why they use ground rules promotes a deeper analysis of beliefs and assumptions. Querying whether ground rules are imposed or constructed invites the mediator to consider the power they exercise and the role – the ‘who’ – they perform in the interaction.

Being explicit about interaction is of importance to the university mediator as they take a relational rather than transactional approach to mediation. Interaction is more than simply the medium in which dialogue occurs and resolution forged and the mediator must therefore position themselves intentionally within the interaction. Consider the question as to who should speak first in the joint meeting of the parties. Does the mediator decide – utilising perhaps a convention acquired in basic training – or do they invite the parties to decide? Either approach may work, but they represent different approaches to the mediator’s position within the interaction.

In-house university mediators develop advanced skills by using reflective practice to make the most of their limited opportunities to practice. However, having cemented the foundations for interactional competence they need to draw on reflexive practice to develop their personal style and become fluent in interaction. The process requires thought, and commitment to developing a new kind of judging skill.

Kressel, K. (2013) ‘How do Mediators Decide What to Do? Implicit Schemas of Practice and Mediator Decisionmaking’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 28(3), pp. 709–35.
Wall, J. A. and Dunne, T. C. (2012) ‘State of the Art Mediation Research : A Current Review’, Negotiation Journal, (April), pp. 217–244.
Wall, J. and Kressel, K. (2012) ‘Research on Mediator Style: A Summary and Some Research Suggestions’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), pp. 403–421.

‍